• Jonghoo Lee and Jae-Uk Song.
• Department of Internal Medicine, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju National University School of Medicine, Jeju, South Korea. Electronic address: lovlet@paran.com.
• J Crit Care. 2020 Feb 1; 55: 1-8.

PurposeWe sought to elucidate the performance of a Quick Sequential Organ Function Assessment-65 (qSOFA-65) score in recognizing sepsis and to compare the qSOFA-65 score to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and qSOFA scores.MethodsWe performed a matched case-control study using propensity score matching. The number of patients meeting qSOFA-65, qSOFA, and SIRS positive criteria were calculated between the sepsis and non-sepsis groups. We compared the diagnostic performance of the three scoring systems in predicting sepsis.ResultsA total of 2441 patients were included in the study. In propensity matched cohorts, the percentage of patients who met qSOFA-65, qSOFA, and SIRS positive criteria were 46.7%, 14.3%, and 55.6%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity scores for the qSOFA-65, qSOFA, and SIRS positive criteria for sepsis were 0.66 and 0.73, 0.28 and 0.97, and 0.66 and 0.55, respectively. The AUC value of qSOFA-65 positive criteria in predicting sepsis was significantly higher than that of qSOFA and SIRS positive criteria (adjusted AUC 0.688 vs. 0.630 vs. 0.596, respectively).ConclusionsWe found that qSOFA-65 was more likely to identify patients with sepsis on the initial ED visit relative to qSOFA or SIRS. This may have quality improvement implications in predicting sepsis.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

17 keywords...

hide…